Yak-1 flaps down arcadish behaviour?

[303_Kwiatek]

I put 2 tracks one with Yak-1 turn flaps vs clean config and second with Fw 190 similar test.   We made several turning test ( which weren't not on track casue of size ) by changing pilot who fly with flaps down and got always the same results Yak-1 with flaps down outurn horizontally Yak-1 with clean config, and other hand Fw 190 A-3 or G-2 in clean config outurn flaps down version.

 

http://www.filedropper.com/tracks_3

 

Test is simple and repetable reamin only 2 person.

Edited March 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[[TWB]Ewertsp]

Did you even read Kwiatek's test? The Yak 1 retains energy better in a zoom climb than a plane that is 1 ton heavier and has better powerloading, which definitely should not happen.

I don't care about the test. It's real simple, when I'm facing a 190 pilot that know what he's doing I can't catch him. When it's not the case, one more kill for me. Simple like that.

[YSoMadTovarisch]

I don't care about the test. It's real simple, when I'm facing a 190 pilot that know what he's doing I can't catch him. When it's not the case, one more kill for me. Simple like that.

This discussion is about aerodynamics with numbers, the test was made with both planes at the same speed and thus what you're saying has nothing to do with it.

[Sunde]

I'm talking about one of the motives for this topic to even exist.

Because no real plane will behave like the yak does in a turn or climb with flaps. i have flow prop planes (tho mostly gliders). But i do have some experience with prop planes, and i assure you that if i pull down flaps while climbing, the resoult will not be an increase in climbrate or a sudden ability to hang on the propeller, no the plane will very quickly bleed airspeed and nose down as the flaps disrupt the airflow adding alot of drag to an already slow moving airplane. I assume alot of people on these threads have little to no real life experience with aircraft, i mean some on the comment on this topic are just absurd. 

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Finally a track file..

 

Ok, next question, where is the real world test data that this 'testing' is relating to?

 

Next, what values, at what points, were obtained and how did they differ from the real world data?

 

Next, how were the values and points in question obtained? and at what times were they collected.

[Primus_71]

I put 2 tracks one with Yak-1 turn flaps vs clean config and second with Fw 190 similar test.   We made several turning test ( which weren't not on track casue of size ) by changing pilot who fly with flaps down and got always the same results Yak-1 with flaps down outurn horizontally Yak-1 with clean config, and other hand Fw 190 A-3 or G-2 in clean config outurn flaps down version.

 

http://www.filedropper.com/tracks_3

 

Test is simple and repetable reamin only 2 person.

 

Thank you for taking the time. 

[unreasonable]

Finally a track file..

 

Ok, next question, where is the real world test data that this 'testing' is relating to?

 

Next, what values, at what points, were obtained and how did they differ from the real world data?

 

Next, how were the values and points in question obtained? and at what times were they collected.

 

You know you really can take this "testing format business" too far. If the track file shows that the plane flies in a manner that is, prima facie, implausible then that is enough to establish that there is an issue that requires further investigation. Indeed, perhaps enough to shift the burden of proof altogether.

 

There may well be, as you perfectly well know, no real world data for this particular plane performing these maneuvers with flaps down, formatted in a nice table with all the conditions specified to your satisfaction. It is all very well to seek greater specificity in people's comments about FMs, but making absurd demands does nothing for your credibility. 

[[TWB]Ewertsp]

Because no real plane will behave like the yak does in a turn or climb with flaps. i have flow prop planes (tho mostly gliders). But i do have some experience with prop planes, and i assure you that if i pull down flaps while climbing, the resoult will not be an increase in climbrate or a sudden ability to hang on the propeller, no the plane will very quickly bleed airspeed and nose down as the flaps disrupt the airflow adding alot of drag to an already slow moving airplane. I assume alot of people on these threads have little to no real life experience with aircraft, i mean some on the comment on this topic are just absurd. 

No joke? 

Just show me where I said there's nothing wrong with the yak.

 

The game was released back in november 2013 and the yak has been like that ever since. I don't remember other threads talking about it, do you? why now? I find really hard to believe an IRL pilot would take so much time to report such a distinct behavior like this one.

[303_Kwiatek]

I think some clearly issues dont need 100 page proofs or physical code.  I think such simple proof should be enough to aware devs that something could be not right in game and need more detailed check.  These is flight model engineer work.  Not our. We could only point some clearly things what we do

here.

 

Of course if someone is capable to do much more deeper and detailed engineers reports it is always welcome.

Edited March 26, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Of course if someone is capable to do much more deeper and detailed engineers reports it is always welcome.

Can do, but need the info requested

[71st_AH_Hooves]

I doubt a debated flap performance issue will kill the game.

I would remind people that at one point there was a "trim" issue. People said it would kill the game. Pretty sure that issue is dead and the game lives on. The sky is not falling. If they see a good source indicating a change should be made. I'm sure they will. They have shown that FMvs are subject to revision.

 

If we're going to complain about something. Why not make it a complaint about the Lack of F11!!!

Edited March 26, 2015 by [TWB]Hooves_McG

[MK_RED13]

Anyone testing Lagg with fullflaps???

[303_Kwiatek]

I suppose not.

 

One thing i notice regarding Lagg3 from some time it lost vicious spin characteristic and now recovery very fast from spin.

[PeterZvan]

Did some Lagg3 tests

Same setup as before - 40% fuel. 45% radiators -> it overheats after some time, but its ok for combat.

Same map and above the ground.

2700rpm, altitude just above ground:

For Mp relevance I started with the 23 mm cannon

- 23mm cannon

0% flaps - turn time = ca. 19,7 sec (ca 310...320km/h)

10% flaps - turn time = ca. 19,4 sec (ca 290....300km/h)

20% flaps - turn time = ca. 19,3 sec (ca 280....290km/h)

50% flaps - turn time = ca. 20,5 sec (ca 260...270km/h)

100% flaps - turn time = ca. 21 sec (ca 250km/h)

 

- 20mm cannon

0% Flaps - turn time = ca. 18,3..18,4 sec (ca 310km/h)

20% Flaps - turn time = ca. 18,5...18,6 sec (ca. 290... 300km/h)

 

Some comments - turn time difference was expected.

Performance with 20mm cannon is very good - I was expecting worse results

Also with the 23mm cannon the results still are good.

However as expected worse than the Lagg and the 109.

I havent done 109 g2 I suspect it is between the F4 and the Lagg with 0 flaps - simmilar or a bit worse to the Yak with 0 flaps.

 

Interesting with the Lagg - the performance is very simmilar with 0, 10% and 20% flaps. It seems that 10 to 15% flaps would give the best performance, however its hard to say - I measured with a stopwatch and the measurement accuracy is not fine enough to be conclusive.

In any case with 0% flaps you are not loosing performance in sustained turn + more energy is kept so it is better.

50% flaps decrease the performance dramaticly and 100% even more. And the flight is less stable. However for some time with 100% flaps the turn performance is good. But the energy bleed of the flaps is substantial and as expected.

The Yak seems is the big offender here.

[PeterZvan]

Also did the 190 now - again same map and winter configuration.

2 cannon configuration

40% fuel

86% throttle (1,34 ata - max combat power) - auto prop pitch - turn to the right.

 

0% flaps - turn time = ca. 18,9 sec (ca 340...360km/h)

combat flaps - turn time = ca. 20 sec (ca 300....310km/h)

100 % flaps - turn time = ca. 24,8 sec (ca 240....260km/h)

 

100% throttle (1,42 ata - max power) - auto prop pitch

0% flaps - turn time = ca. 17,9 sec (ca 340...360km/h)

 

Also flaps behaviour as expected - seems that there are no concerns here.

However performance is really good - I wasnt expecting this at all. Especially with 100% power its very good.

Sure the configuration is very light and the turn speed is somewhat higher, but still 17,9 sec is really fast.

 

As for 40% fuel - this is aproximate levels that are used in combat in MP (some flight time to climb...) - I did the tests to be able to judge the situation for MP.

Edited March 27, 2015 by PeterZvan

[303_Kwiatek]

Thx PeterZwan looks thats Lagg-3 with flaps down bleed more energy that with clean.  Still  difference is not such big  only 1 second in full turn difference.  Your test with 109 F-4 show 1 second difference between clean 109 and 20% flaps down. Fw 190 loose about 5 second with full flaps comparing to clean config.

 

Situation is that  German planes loose a lot energy ( and speed) with flaps down in turn comparing to clean config,  Lagg-3 lose only 1 second and Yak-1 turn much better with full flaps down comparing to clean config.

Edited March 27, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[PeterZvan]

La5

 

Flat windscreen

40% fuel

45% radiators and cowels (plane overheats after 3 consecutive turns - would need around 70% - after testing turn performance drops about 0,5....1 sec per turn)

right turn

same winter location, turns above ground.

boosted mode

100% prop pitch

 

0% flaps - turn time = ca. 19,4 sec (ca 340km/h)

20%flaps  - turn time = ca. 18,8 sec (ca 310km/h)

100 % flaps - turn time = ca. 18,3 sec (ca 260....270km/h)

 

Here the performance increases again with flaps. The situation is different to the Lagg - my reasoning is that the boosted engine has much more thrust and therefore can improve the turn rate with full flaps -> however I am not in a position to say if this is right or wrong. If unboosted the La"s energy loss is too high to have a better turn time with full flaps.

 

However from all the planes it has the worst turn time performance without flaps. Even with boosted mode and overheat hapening relativly fast.

The performance increase with full flaps comes only at low level and in boosted mode. Above about 1000m the turn performance suffers more and more.

Its really not very capable as a turnfighter and now the FW can easily outturn it in the 2 cannon configuration - especially in a engagement which takes a longer time.

 

 

Globaly between the fighters for me the suspicious plane is the Yak with full flaps. For that plane I dont see any logic for the performance increase.

The problem with the 109 and flaps setting is in the issue with stability with full flaps - to have a clean sustained turn many corrections are needed and in effect they decrease the performance as well.

On all other fighters the extended flaps dont make the plane as unstable as the 109. However the 109s flaps are shorter than on the other fighters and this IMO has an impact on stability.

 

It would be very nice to get some explanation from the FM developers here - just for our understanding.

And of course work done on the Yak - IMO for the Yak the drag and especially the turbulences behind the flaps are not being calculated correctly (not enough drag).

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Well I just watched the two tracks, and it was pretty much what I expected..

 

Two planes flying around in a circle..

 

Both constantly changing the radius (leading than lagging) of the circle and bobing up in down in altitude..

 

Those two things alone could be the reason pilot was able to or not gain on the other..

 

In short, the tracks, as most testing tracks I have seen, says more about the pilots that the planes..

 

For those thinking this is a valid test to do, and are thinking of doing it..

 

I recommend you use a more controlled and formal method that will greatly reduce the pilot differences and errors..

 

To do that make use of the map 'fly through rings'..

 

You know the kind you see on some of the racing servers..

• step 1: Create a circle using the fly through ring on level ground. goto step 2.
• step 2: Fly through the ring using flaps. goto step 3.
• step 3: Make several laps/passes. goto step 4.
• step 4: If you can make several laps/passes without crashing. goto step 5. If you can not make several laps/passes goto step 6.
• step 5: Decrease the radius of the circle. goto step 1.
• step 6: Increase the radius of the circle back to the previous one. goto step 7. 
• step 7 Fly through them without using flaps.

The idea is you keep reducing the size of the circle until you can barley fly through it using flaps, than, try and fly it without flaps

 

If you can not do it, than you know flaps are having an effect on your turn radius. 

If you can do it, then you know flaps are not having an affect on your turn radius. 

 

Nice thing about this method it does not require a 2nd pilots and limits the leading lagging and bobing around.

 

Added benefit of this test is you can share the map to others to see if they can fly the 'circle' of 'fly through ring' to as part of the scientific method of repeatable by others.

 

Because the method used thus far just has too many potential pilot errors in it IMHO.

Edited March 27, 2015 by ACEOFACES

[PeterZvan]

A bit more about my tests.

I try to find the best performance for a sustained turn so that I dont gain / loose height and can keep a constant speed.

To make sure I keep my altitude I fly almost directly over ground - this way there is minimal error and deffinitly no time gained with a constant dive.

I make several laps and time each one with the stopwatch.

Average of this laptimes is what I give as results - and only the average if I can do several consistant laptimes with a time difference of max +/-0,1 sec / lap.

This is why I am confident to say that my testing results are relevant enough to draw some conclusions out of it.  

[303_Kwiatek]

Your turn time test just confirm my turning test with other plane ( Yak-1, 109 and Fw 190).    Final results are the same Yak-1 with full flaps down outturn Yak-1 with clean config where 109 or Fw 190 not.

Edited March 27, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[303_Kwiatek]

Regarding pneumatic flaps operating i found such info about Spitfire flaps operation system:

 

"Next, a quick check of air pressure to see the flap system is not leaking. As mentioned, the flaps are also operated off the air pressure system, and they are held in the open position against aerodynamic load by air pressure. So, if you lose air pressure because of a leak in the flap system, the stored air pressure in the compressed air tanks will rapidly leak, and can easily exceed the small engine driven air compressors ability to restore the pressure. In this situation, you will eventually have the flaps blow back, and you will also have no air pressure to operate the brakes on landing. "

 

Alhough still nothing about potential damage with increasing aeodynamic load against air pressure flaps system. Also interesting is how extended flaps are affected by G loads.

Edited March 27, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Didn't the Yak have hydraulic flaps? If it had (as far as I know it did) it surely has more problems than the Spitfire, ie. feezing of the hydraulic fluid locking the flaps. This is the worst scenario a pilot could imagine.

 

The test AoA describes may serve the comparison of crit AoA bahviour of both configurations but barely anythingto turn times. To test that it's best to pick a certain airspeed (sth you can keep up with using landing flaps) and perform constant turns on a flat circle. Keep that airspeed constant and after several stable turns compare the average turn times.

 

That should help gathering some decent numbers to support arguments about turn performance.

[Brano]

 

Didn't the Yak have hydraulic flaps?

Pneumatic system in Yak was used for:
1.Main gear operation+emergency gear release
2.Flaps operation
3.Engine start-up
4.Brakes operation
5.Guns operations (reload and fire)

Compressed air was stored in 4 separate tanks (main+emergency for gear under pilot seat,backup behind armored desk,for guns inbetween engine cylinders)

In the air the pressure was maintained via kompressor AK-50 with reduction valve which maintained constant pressure in the system (50kg/cm2).

Why do I even bother to post....

[Finkeren]

Honestly Brano, I think a lot of people have no idea of the differences between a hydraulic and a pneumatic system and how different results they produce despite working on the same general principle.

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

hard to compress a liquid.. air.. not so much

[6./ZG26_5tuka]

Well I know for sure. If not I shoudln't study engineering

 

Not all people have time to scam threw whole topics so bare with me Brano. It's better to ask than state sth false.

[MK_RED13]

I acctually made some tests myself.

All turns just above ground - done in quick mission - both planes same map and flight location.

 

109 F4 with 0 radiators and 84% throttle (1,32 ata) sustained turn to the right, 40% fuel

I used arounnd -10% of elevator stabilizer setting - more gives a worse sustained turn performance (best is in  the region between +10 to - 10 %)

0 flaps -  best consistant laptime = 16,9sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 300...310km/h indicated in cockpit)

10% flaps - best consistant laptime = 17,8sec/turn (smooth turn possible - needed more corrections with rudder, around 280...290km/h indicated in cockpit)

20% flaps - best consistant laptime = 18,8sec/turn (smooth turn difficult to hold - needed many corrections with rudder rudder, around 260...280km/h indicated in cockpit)

 

So here its clear that best sustained turn performance is without flaps.

 

Yak 1 with 40% both radiators (no overheat insustained turn), 100% throttle 2700rpm, 40% fuel, sustained turn to the right.

0 flaps -  best consistant laptime = 17,0sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 300...310km/h indicated in cockpit)

100% flaps - best consistant laptime = 15,4sec/turn (smooth turn possible, around 240...250km/h indicated in cockpit)

 

Flaps give a huge turn performance increase to the Yak.

I have no idea if its right or not, however considering how the other planes behave and the design of the Yak flaps I would say that it is incorrect.

Just before this was not so drastic as it is now.

 

One thing that I am not sure in is the acctual turn time performance of the F4 and Yak - to me it seems that both turn too fast without flaps - maybe Yak without flaps is not to far off, however the F4 is probably 1 to 2 seconds to fast without flaps.

 

... some comment from developers??

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

... some comment from developers??

My guess is you wont see a developers comment on this due to the report not meeting several of the requirements of rule 18..

 

http://forum.il2sturmovik.com/topic/3-forum-rules-v102/

 

With regards to the track file requirement.. For some time now, even prior to rule 18 being added I have been stressing the importance of providing a track file of the 'test'.. But most folks here ignored it, glad to see the devs understand the importance of an associated track file. This will greatly reduce allot of the bogus testing and make it easier for the devs to see what the testers are talking about.

[6./ZG26_Custard]

I wonder what Ekaterina Vilkova thinks about the flaps issue?

 

 

Thought as much!

[6./ZG26_Emil]

I wonder what Ekaterina Vilkova thinks about the flaps issue?

 

 

Thought as much!

 

I watched the whole thing in just over a day...thought it was pretty damn cool :D

[FuriousMeow]

Unless all Russian aircraft are anemic and nothing more than targets for the infallibly superior German aircraft then they are arcade or completely inaccurate. 

 

I wish that were tongue in cheek but is so often present in so many comments that it is without question very much believed by so many, despite that even in the literature that so many cite here should be used as a secondary source (yikes!) for aircraft flight modelling in conjunction with actual verifiable and quantifiable data, the elite German pilots state that when coming across well flown early LaGG and early Yak aircraft they were very formidable opponents that would engage and damage/shoot down them and/or their wingmen.

Edited April 1, 2015 by FuriousMeow

[GOAT-ACEOFACES]

Sadly.. IMHO.. there is allot of truth in that statment

 

Which is the reason I suspect the dev's came up with rule 18..

 

No more rumors, put up or shut up

[6./ZG26_Custard]

 

 

I watched the whole thing in just over a day...thought it was pretty damn cool :D

Well I'm on episode 10 and even though there is plenty of balsa wood, Papier-mâché and some truly awful subtitles on display I'm finding it most enjoyable   

 

back on topic, It's already been said we are never going to get a 100% accurate FM or aircraft behaviours from a flight sim. Without trying to sound too controversial (and I am just speculating and could be completely wrong) but maybe the Russian birds have been slightly tweaked to balance game play? It would be no fun whatsoever if one particular set of aircraft completely dominated in a game. I make no judgement either way.

 

There are some wonderful things about this game and there are a bunch of things I would love to change about it, but on the whole I enjoy this game more so than the likes of DCS etc

[MK_RED13]

I fly every day and every day I see pilots of Yak and Lagg (La5) exploit FULL FLAPS advantage ... it's really ridiculous/sad to see their "airshow" ... Is there any hope to fix it? 

[3instein]

I only use the flaps for landing ( sometimes ) but if this is indeed the case that they have got arcade FM why aren't the devs doing anything about it?

 

Mick.

[II/JG17_HerrMurf]

I don't usually get too deep into these FM debates but I will say I am suddenly fighting an awful lot of Yak's and -5's with their flaps out. I saw a bit of this over the last year but since the last patch or two it's is a very common occurance. There doesn't seem to be much of a performance hit for doing it and goes against my real world expectations in light planes.

If testers worked well, these threads might not be exist.

 

S!

Easy, you. That is a thinly veiled personal attack. Stay on topic.

[LukeFF]

If testers worked well, these threads might not be exist.

 

S!

 

You don't want to go down that road, and spare us all your patronizing little salute remark. 

[6./ZG26_Custard]

_{Unless you are flying in a real Yak, LaGG or 109 you are never going to get 100% accurate flight models. The doom squad attitude is pointless. If it's that terrible and you really don't like it,  it's probably best to "head out of dodge" so to speak and go back to your sim of choice.}

 

_{There are many aspects that I found disappointing about Clod and DCS.}

 

_{I have found that since flying in BoS I can't go back to them. Overall I think the FM in BoS blows Clod's out of the water so I don't fly in it anymore, but I'm not over at the ATAG forum telling them that the FM sucks or they need to sort out the ridiculous landing process in 5.0. As for DCS, a wonderful product that is just so lacking  from a WWII point of view.}

 

_{I sometimes wonder at our community, There are some posts across this forum that take an almost sadistic pleasure in willing this flight sim to fail . What a shame because IMHO I think that its a great product, admittedly not without faults but improving all the time with every update}

 

_Regards

 

_OC

[[BTEAM]_Shifty_]

lap tests

I make several laps and time each one with the stopwatch.

Excellent tests. If only you could repeat them at 1000m altitude and ISA (and full fuel?), then they could be compared to real-world data.

 

And more precise measurement is when you measure time to finish 3 or 4 laps at once and then divide accordingly instead of averaging single lap times.

[303_Kwiatek]

_{Unless you are flying in a real Yak, LaGG or 109 you are never going to get 100% accurate flight models. The doom squad attitude is pointless. If it's that terrible and you really don't like it,  it's probably best to "head out of dodge" so to speak and go back to your sim of choice.}

 

_{There are many aspects that I found disappointing about Clod and DCS.}

 

_{I have found that since flying in BoS I can't go back to them. Overall I think the FM in BoS blows Clod's out of the water so I don't fly in it anymore, but I'm not over at the ATAG forum telling them that the FM sucks or they need to sort out the ridiculous landing process in 5.0. As for DCS, a wonderful product that is just so lacking  from a WWII point of view.}

 

_{I sometimes wonder at our community, There are some posts across this forum that take an almost sadistic pleasure in willing this flight sim to fail . What a shame because IMHO I think that its a great product, admittedly not without faults but improving all the time with every update}

 

_Regards

 

_OC

 

There are some obvious performacne of planes errors in BOS which i think are rather easy to fix   (  Yak-1/Lagg-3 and F-4 high alts overperformacne, Yak-1 flaps arcadish behaviour)  but there is no will to do it.  People just want that these sim will be simulator based on realistic flight model phycics and historical performacne of planes casue these game have potential to do it. For some reasons there is not too much will to do it.

 

Thats why i decided to not buy BOM. I dont like balanced game. But these is my chooice.

 

Not in topic but you are free to write in ATAG forum about flight model or performance issues and i think nobody will ban you for that.  There are some general limitations in CLOD regarding take off and landings characteristic but these is general problem for all planes in game. At least performacne of planes are based on historical accuracy.  There is no any side bias there.

Edited April 28, 2015 by 303_Kwiatek